Apart from about 50 IQ points, I'd say naivety.
2007-03-27 23:51:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by celebduath 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
The father had a lot of experience in international affairs and had respect for international cooperation. He was able to get Iraq out of Kuwait by building a coalition including Arab nations. He was a pragmatist on domestic issues rather than an ideologue. He was not a desciple of the principle that tax cuts are the prime mover of economic growth. He made a foolish promise during his campaign that he would not raise taxes and when he felt he had to go back on that it doomed his chances for reelection. He was thin on charisma but presented himself pretty honestly. He build a distinguished career of public service starting with being the youngest US fighter pilot in WWII, to being in Congress, a diplomat, ran the CIA, VP and then President.
Bush the son has no understanding or respect for international community. He is not a consensus building at all and does not seek input from beyond a close circle of like-minded advisors. He comes to quick decisions based on very simple ideas of the world and then refuses to change his mind even when those decisions turn out to be disasterous. He had an easy life, getting many opportunities because of family ties and his easy-going affable personality even when he performed poorly in one business after another. As opposed to his father's war record he did what he could to avoid fighting for his country. He is a one trick pony - no imagination besides one solution to each problem. As Govenor of Texas he latched onto "personal accountability" and somehow manifested that into executing more people than any other govenor in history. On the economy his only idea has ever been to cut taxes. Then cut them more. He fixated on attacking Iraq and then sought to justify it through any means possible, instead of finding justification first and then deciding
Besides their names and their party I cannot think of more different people than the two George Bushes.
2007-03-28 07:02:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
41 is a fine man and was a fine president. He made the mistake of not finishing off Saddam in 1991. 43 has been tougher in foreign policy and more courageous against the America hating left. Although many of his policies on spending for education and social projects along with immigration ideas are more in line with Democrats, they have chosen too ignore such things. God help us if congress manages to pass a surrender bill on Iraq. Hopefully he will continue to show the leadership and strength of character to veto any such nonsense. I think the secular left hate him the most because he is a moral, Godly man that follows his convictions, loves his country and is not swayed by the din of shrill lies from those that don't.
2007-03-28 07:27:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by John B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
22 years
2007-03-28 06:46:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by ThorGirl 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
The son has more courage to stand up to Congress. The father when along with congressional tax increases.
2007-03-28 06:46:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by edward m 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think George snr could walk down the street and chew gum at the same time
2007-03-28 06:47:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ted 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
No difference both are self absorbed, money hungry a$$holes.
2007-04-01 01:40:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Rhionnan 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
What is a generation?
2007-03-28 06:49:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Daddy had more than two brain cells. Maybe it'll be the inheritence.
2007-03-28 06:45:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by guy o 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
There is no difference..they are both greedy selfish,and stupid.
2007-03-28 06:48:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Student 4
·
0⤊
2⤋